Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica > #3482 > unrolled thread

Re: How to write a "proper" math document

Back to article view | Back to comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How to write a "proper" math document "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale@excelitas.com> - 2011-07-05 09:13 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-06 09:39 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-06 09:40 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> - 2011-07-07 11:31 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-08 08:57 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document Peltio <peltio@twilight.zone> - 2011-07-08 09:09 +0000
          Re: How to write a "proper" math document Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> - 2011-07-09 11:34 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document "David Park" <djmpark@comcast.net> - 2011-07-07 11:29 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-08 08:55 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> - 2011-07-08 08:58 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-09 11:32 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-09 11:32 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-09 11:44 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl> - 2011-07-12 10:59 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl> - 2011-07-13 07:13 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> - 2011-07-13 07:17 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu> - 2011-07-14 09:28 +0000
        Re: How to write a "proper" math document Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl> - 2011-07-15 01:24 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale@excelitas.com> - 2011-07-07 11:33 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale@excelitas.com> - 2011-07-07 11:38 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-07-08 09:02 +0000
      Re: How to write a "proper" math document Armand Tamzarian <mike.honeychurch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 09:06 +0000
    Re: How to write a "proper" math document JUN <noeckel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 09:43 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#3582

In article <iv45sh$f6b$1@smc.vnet.net>,
 "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McHale@excelitas.com> wrote:

> Thanks!  Very powerful comments.  I will have to think considerably about 
> this.  I wonder if this is what Stephen Wolfram did?  Anyone have insight?  
> No doubt Heikki Ruskeepaa's work should almost ship with Mathematica.  I 
> consider it one of a few essential books for Mathematica.

Well, as a confirmation of my own "reference material on physical 
desktop, active computations on monitor screen" approach (or maybe just 
my own compulsive character), I have literally razor-bladed my copy of 
Navigator in 30 separate chapters, each held by a mini binder clip, all 
of them standing upright in a box on my self.  (Thank god he followed 
the long-standing publishing practice of starting each chapter on a 
right-hand page.)

When I need to get into some new Mathematica topic (stylesheet editing, 
manipulations,  difference equations, whatever), the relevant chapter 
comes over on the desktop to get consulted, highlighted and marked up.  
I wish he'd sell the book as a boxed set something like this -- or at 
least a spiral-bound folio-sized lie-flat version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3590

On Jul 7, 9:38 pm, "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McH...@excelitas.com> wrote:
> Thanks!  Very powerful comments.  I will have to think considerably about this.  I wonder if this is what Stephen Wolfram did?  Anyone have insight?  No doubt Heikki Ruskeepaa's work should almost ship with Mathematica.  I consider it one of a few essential books for Mathematica.
>
> Paul McHale  |  Electrical Engineer, Energetics Systems  |  Excelitas Technologies Corp.
>
> Phone:   +1 937.865.3004   |   Fax:  +1 937.865.5170   |   Mobile:   +1 937.371.2828
> 1100 Vanguard Blvd, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342-0312 USA
> Paul.McH...@Excelitas.comwww.excelitas.com
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This email message and any attachments are confidential and proprietary to Excelitas Technologies Corp. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please inform the sender by replying to this email or sending a message to the sender and destroy the message and any attachments.
> Thank you
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AES [mailto:sieg...@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 5:41 AM
> Subject: Re: How to write a "proper" math document
>
> In article <iuukk8$ep...@smc.vnet.net>,
>  "McHale, Paul" <Paul.McH...@excelitas.com> wrote:
>
> > Looking at Mathematica's admitted origins as an authoring tool for Stephen
> > Wolfram to publish his books, it's stronger points become evident.  It works
> > very well in the individual experiment, document and "publish" mode. Publish
> > here meaning the document is indistinguishable from a PDF with static data,
> > no interaction.  A book.  I will likely stay in the standard flow of
> > experiment, document and publish.  As we can see from the exchanges of
> > emails, this path is sufficiently difficult to do well.  Stephen just makes
> > it look easy :)
>
> With regard to this specific situation of going from notebook to "static
> book", let me quote from the 3rd edition of Heikki Ruskeepaa's masterful
> Mathematica Navigator.  Navigator is of course "a book" -- a superb book
> -- written in Mathematica.
>
> But in Section 3.4 of this book, entitled "Writing Mathematica
> Documents" and following a subsection on "Mathematica as a Writing
> Tool", Ruskeepaa has a subsection which reads as follows:
>
> =================
> Main and Working Documents
>
> When writing a mathematical document with Mathematica, it may be useful
> to work simultaneously with two documents: a {\it main document} and a
> {\it working document. The main document will grow into the final
> publication, whereas all computations are done in the working document.
> Mathematical results, tables, and graphics are copied from the working
> document into the main document. This division into two documents may be
> needed because the main document may not contain the Mathematica
> commands but only the results. The working document contains all used
> Mathematica commands so that all computations can easily be done again.
>
>    The working document should include the same sections as are in th=
e
> main document so that you can easily find the computations of a certain
> section. Add into the working document comments about the computations,
> such as any difficulties that may arise; they may be valuable if you
> need to do similar computations at a later time.
>
>    When you have completed the writing project, you will then have th=
e
> main document ready to be printed and the working document that will
> enable you to redo and modify computations as needed.
> =========================
==
> =================
>
> Repeat:  _two_ documents.  And although I can't track down the exact
> quote, I believe that in an earlier edition Ruskeepaa states even more
> explicitly that this approach is how he wrote his book.
>
> In a recent post I've suggested a variation on this two-document
> approach: a Mathematic notebook which contains all the "text" content
> (not necessarily cleanly formatted for publication) and does all the
> computations, and then a post-processor (written in whatever language
> you like) which intelligently converts that notebook into a TeX or LaTeX
> document, which (after minor touchup) produces the book.
>
> I believe there are two great advantages to this approach:
>
> 1)  It uses the best tool for each separate task -- and thereby does
> each of them better, more powerfully, AND more easily.
>
> 2)  Instead of every individual who uses Mathematica having to struggle
> to learn how to do both the technical computations _and_ the
> publications formatting simultaneously in one tool (and instead of, as a
> result, enormously complicating and messing up the syntax and interface
> to Mathematica, to its substantial detriment), put the hard work of
> writing the post-processor on a few skilled individuals, who know how to
> do that sort of thing.
>
> (In fact, multiple post-processors are likely to emerge and compete in
> this situation -- the best results of meaningful competition.)
>
> In any event, let's note:  Even a Mathematica wizard like Heikki
> Ruskeepaa ended up using a _two_ document approach -- he did NOT
> docomputation and publication, all in one single notebook.


Having typeset a book in Mathematica I don't believe it is necessary
at all to run two documents -- in fact I cannot imagine trying to run
a book project like that.

If you have a grasp of stylesheeting and front end commands (as per
what David Reiss alludes to above) then IMO a single document is the
way to go.

My 2c

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3749

Of course I agree that Mathematica is really convenient for this kind
of quick and easy document preparation, with the ability to export to
many reasonable formats such as PDF, and XML.

But just to set the record straight, because it was mentioned as an
important feature that TeX doesn't offer: in LyX on Mac OS X
(mentioned by Murray as a LaTeX frontend), you can in fact paste PDF
directly from the clipboard.

Jens

On Jul 14, 6:24 pm, Andrzej Kozlowski <a...@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> You explained what everyone (or almost everyone) knows but omitted the
> only interesting part.  That is: copying *a part* of a pdf and pasting
> it into another pdf to get a third one. I don't think TeX is of any help
> with that. You can do it with the full Adobe Acrobat, but it is not free
> and it is not nearly as simple as selecting a part of a pdf with the
> mouse, copying it (only on the Mac) pasting the selected part into
> Mathematica, adding some more stuff, and printing to pdf.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>
> On 14 Jul 2011, at 11:22, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Producing a single pdf output file is today trivial in TeX -- in fact,
> > that's often the default.
>
> > Inserting a graphic via a mark-up command in the source (which would
> > then be included, in its entirety, in sch a pdf output) is straightforw=
ard.
>
> > But with TeX, even copy-and-paste with a graphic is simple if you use
> > the LyX interface to LaTeX.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

csiph-web